But since many corporations can merely flee to another country, maybe we should take a global approach. Maybe we should implement the ideas of Charter 99, eventually developing international corporate restraints. Some of the ideas in Developing International Democracy bear careful scrutiny, which George Monbiot pursued in detail. But I digress.
Because the 14th Amendment does not even hint at corporate personhood, judicial decisions granting it lack credibility. In the 1800s, the US Supreme Court "declared people to be property and gave property the rights of people." (Nace, p.208) If their decisions lack credibility, their authority lacks legitimacy.
While pondering corporate personhood, I came upon a link to the decision. It seems Ted Nace had the same questions, and wanted to see how the Supremes justified corporate personhood. They didn't:
"The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."Â Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886)
Nace found no explanation, no justification � merely an assertion of corporate personhood. He goes on to explain:
"Santa Clara became its own myth Â? leading to the mistaken idea that the entire octopus of corporate power stems from that one Supreme Court decision.
"One tip-off that there is more to the story of corporate power than Santa Clara is the date of the decision: 1886. Something was surely going on earlier, because beginning in the mid-1860s a number of prominent Americans began issuing a stream of near-hysterical alarms about corporate power. For example, in 1865 Abraham Lincoln wrote the following...
'We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood.... It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.
As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.
I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.'"
If Honest Abe was trembling 150 years ago, imagine the terror he would feel today now that corporations own Congress, and dictate domestic, foreign and global policy. By the way, I find it instructive that waging war increases corporate power. Given that the US has waged wars, nonstop, for well over a century, we probably shouldn't be surprised to find ourselves completely controlled by corporations today. Â
The Demise of Free and Fair ElectionsÂ
Corporate takeover extends to our elections, as well, where we find judicial, congressional and bureaucratic support for the demise of free and fair elections, with the exception of those counties (and nations) which hand count paper ballots on election night. Techno-based elections comprise secret vote counts � anathema to democracy.
Justices Breyer and Stevens cautioned, in their dissenting opinions, that to halt the Florida recount and appoint Bush president would be to risk losing American confidence in our judicial system. "Selection 2000" was probably the straw, the tipping point, the line in the sand for many activists. But it's not just this single judicial decision which baffles ordinary and reasonable minds. Â
In the 2006 congressional race in Florida's District 13, a race decided by 369 votes, ES&S equipment reported 17,846 voters failed to register a choice for this national seat. Orlando Sentinel's investigation revealed those voters "solidly backed Democratic candidates in all five of Florida's statewide races." Reported results were allowed to stand.
Rewarding election managers with higher salaries, as was done for Michael Vu who oversaw the rigged presidential recount in 2004, and who lost hundreds of mission critical assets in Cuyahoga County (OH)'s 2006 elections, further discredits US elections. San Diegans ought to storm the Bastille, and demand Vu's removal. Hell, San Diego bureaucrats should never have hired him in the first place. Unless, of course, they wanted someone who could lose reprogrammable memory cards and voting machines.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
